ASNT Level III audit support for refining inspection programmes

Which audit are you actually facing

The word audit covers several very different events in a refinery, and preparing for the wrong one wastes the preparation. A customer or client audit of your NDT contractor samples the work performed on their equipment. A certification body audit against ISO 9001, ISO/IEC 17020 or ISO/IEC 17025 samples the management system, impartiality and demonstrated technical competence. A regulatory inspection under the OSHA process safety management standard samples the mechanical integrity element and asks what recognised and generally accepted good engineering practice the programme follows. An insurer or jurisdictional inspection asks narrower questions about specific equipment.

Each of those samples differently. A regulator asks what your written procedures say and then asks for evidence you followed them. An accreditation body asks how you know your personnel are competent and how you keep that judgement independent of commercial pressure. A client asks what you did on their unit, on which dates, and against which revision of their specification. The evidence overlaps heavily, but the narrative, the sampling logic and the room dynamics do not.

Establishing the audit type and its scope before preparing is the first hour of any engagement, because it decides what gets pulled and in what order. Where the technical questions will centre on NDT method, procedure adequacy and personnel qualification, that is the ground ASNT Level III consulting covers, and it is a different exercise from preparing the management system evidence that a lead auditor will want.

How an auditor samples: from one reading back to the written practice

Experienced auditors do not read a programme top down; they sample it bottom up. They open the equipment list, pick a vessel or a circuit, ask for the most recent inspection, and then start pulling. Which report is this? Which procedure does it cite, and by revision? Who performed it, and what qualifies them? What instrument was used, was it in calibration on that date, and against which reference block? Under whose written practice was the technician certified, and what edition does that practice follow?

Each question exposes a link, and each link must name the one below it correctly. The auditor is not looking for perfection; they are looking for whether the chain holds under a random pull. Two or three complete chains, taken from different methods and different contractors, produce a far more reliable picture than reading the quality manual cover to cover. It also means preparation that polishes the top-level documents while leaving the links untested is preparation aimed at the wrong target.

The behaviour to expect when a chain breaks is expansion. One report citing a superseded procedure revision is a finding on one report. It is also a reason to pull ten more, and if two of those break as well the finding is written against the control system rather than the document, which is a materially worse outcome with a materially larger corrective action attached.

The evidence chain, link by link

The chain in a refinery NDT programme runs in a predictable order. The written practice authorises the certification scheme. The certification record qualifies the individual for a method and a level. The procedure, approved by the Level III, defines how the examination is performed and what its essential variables are. The technique sheet or report records what was actually done on the day. The calibration record proves the instrument and reference standards were valid at that moment. The evaluation records that results were compared against the correct acceptance criteria. Only then does a number belong in the integrity record.

Most programmes hold seven of those eight links and lose one, and it is usually the evaluation step. Data arrives, gets loaded, and a corrosion rate is calculated from it without any recorded step in which a competent person judged whether the readings were valid. That gap is invisible until an auditor asks who reviewed a specific anomalous reading, and it is the reason independent NDT report validation exists as a discrete service rather than as an assumed part of data acquisition.

The other frequent break is between the field data and the asset. A thickness reading with no condition monitoring location identity is not evidence of anything, and a CML renumbered during a system migration silently destroys the trend it belonged to. Where the integrity record and the inspection data live in separate systems, that reconciliation should be a scheduled control rather than an annual discovery, which is one of the practical reasons owners consolidate on mechanical integrity software instead of spreadsheets and a document library.

Findings that recur in refining

The written practice edition mismatch leads the list. The practice cites one edition of SNT-TC-1A, while certificates were issued under another with different training hours, experience requirements or examination structure. Close behind it are missing examination papers behind valid-looking certificates, vision tests that lapsed part way through a multi-year contract, and Level III approval signatures from a Level III who is no longer employed, with no documented transfer of the certification authority.

On the data side, the recurring findings are readings with no instrument serial, calibration blocks whose certification expired mid-campaign, and procedure revisions cited on reports that no longer exist in the controlled file. Then there is the quieter one: a corrosion rate that drives a next inspection date, computed from a reading that was later found invalid and never recomputed, so the interval in the system is defensible only by accident.

Contractor transitions concentrate all of these. When an NDT contract changes hands, personnel records, procedure files and calibration histories often do not transfer cleanly, and the new contractor's written practice is not the one under which the previous four years of data were produced. Auditors are alert to that boundary and sample across it deliberately. Owners who keep their own copy of the personnel and procedure evidence, rather than relying on the contractor to hold it, come through that transition without a finding.

What the Level III signs, and what he does not

The Level III signature carries specific weight and specific limits. The Level III approves the written practice, develops and approves NDT procedures and their qualification records, administers and approves the certification of Level I and Level II personnel within that practice, performs technical evaluations, and conducts independent review of examination data. In an audit, the Level III answers technical questions: why this method, why this procedure, why this acceptance level, why this technician was qualified for this examination.

What the Level III does not do matters just as much. Atlantis is not the API inspector of record for your equipment and does not sign the inspection record that an API 510, 570 or 653 inspector owns; that role belongs to the owner-user's authorised inspector. Atlantis is not a process safety management auditor and does not sign off the mechanical integrity element. And Atlantis does not sell API 510, 570 or 653 inspector certification training, which is administered through API's own programme. What Atlantis does provide is NDT method training and certification support to SNT-TC-1A and ISO 9712 through NDT training, which is the personnel side of the same evidence chain.

There is an independence dimension as well. The person who acquired data should not be the sole authority evaluating it, and where the same organisation performs and reviews the work, the reviewer's independence has to be demonstrable in the organisational arrangement, not merely asserted. That distinction is the first thing an ISO/IEC 17020 assessor tests, and it is worth resolving before an assessor raises it.

Gap review before the audit, remediation after the finding

A gap review is run the way the auditor will run it. Pull two or three complete chains per method in use, from the integrity record back to the written practice, and record where each one breaks. Check the written practice against the certificates actually in the file. Confirm procedure revisions cited on a sample of recent reports exist and are current. Test calibration validity on the date of a sampled examination, not on today's date. Produce a register with each gap, its owner, an action and a date.

Remediation after a finding is the same technical work performed under conditions you no longer control. The extent is set by the auditor rather than by you, the deadline is theirs, the sample has usually been widened by whatever triggered the finding, and re-examination of already accepted work is frequently part of the corrective action. There is also a reporting obligation attached, which the voluntary version does not carry.

The arithmetic favours the early version by a wide margin, and the practical trigger points are known in advance: a contractor change, a written practice revision, an upcoming certification body surveillance visit, a new client audit programme, or the twelve weeks before a major turnaround. Any one of those is a sensible moment to book the review rather than to hope. Atlantis engagements here are scoped to the programme rather than sold as a fixed package, and a consultation is the starting point.

Turnaround documentation under audit conditions

A turnaround compresses a year of inspection into a fortnight, and it inverts the normal relationship between work and paperwork. Scaffolding comes down on a schedule, insulation is reinstated on a schedule, and inspection access disappears whether or not the examination was completed. The documentation is therefore written under the worst possible conditions, at the end, by people who have been working nights.

The predictable damage follows a pattern. Repairs authorised in the last forty-eight hours get executed correctly and their re-examination reports arrive after the unit is closed. Deviations get dispositioned verbally on the deck and never written up. Additional examinations ordered on discovery are performed but never linked back to the anomaly that prompted them. Six months later the package is opened by an auditor and none of that context can be reconstructed, even though every physical task was done properly.

The controls that work are all pre-agreed rather than improvised: report templates fixed before mobilisation, a nightly close-out gate where each completed item's package is checked rather than accumulated, a live deviation register with a named approver, and a repair log that will not close without its re-examination reference. Those are gating rules, which means they need to live in the system that issues and closes the work rather than in a supervisor's discipline, which is the practical case for running turnaround inspection through inspection management software.

Where Atlantis fits, and where it does not

Atlantis Inspection Services supplies NDT technical authority to refining operators and their inspection contractors. That means writing and maintaining the written practice, developing and qualifying NDT procedures, certifying personnel within the practice, performing independent review of examination data before it enters the integrity record, and attending audits to answer technical questions on method, procedure and personnel. Anoop Rayavarapu holds ASNT NDT Level III certification in multiple methods and is an API 653 Authorized Inspector, and the practice operates from Houston and Hyderabad.

The boundaries are stated deliberately and should be stated to your auditor too. Atlantis is not a process safety management auditor. Atlantis is not the API inspector of record for your pressure equipment, fixed piping or storage tanks. Atlantis does not deliver API 510, 570 or 653 inspector certification training. Confusion on any of those points creates a bigger audit problem than the one it was meant to solve, because it blurs the accountability the auditor is trying to establish.

Engagement usually starts with a documented gap review scoped to the methods and contractors actually in use, delivered as a prioritised register you can act on and, if you choose, hand to the auditor as evidence of self-assessment. The service is affordable, accessible and fully customisable to the size of the programme. Request a consultation and bring your written practice, one recent NDT report and the equipment list; the first two chains usually tell the whole story.

Turnaround close-out packages: the audit that happens after the plant has already restarted

A refinery turnaround audit has a characteristic that other audits do not: by the time it happens, the unit is usually back in service. That timing changes what the audit can and cannot do. It cannot re-inspect anything — the vessel is closed, insulated, and running. It can only test whether the documentation package generated during the turnaround window supports the decisions that were made, which means the close-out package is being asked to do all the evidentiary work that direct re-examination would otherwise do.

The recurring gap is disposition trail rather than raw data. Turnaround inspection generates a large volume of readings under significant schedule pressure, and the readings themselves are usually retained. What frequently is not retained, or is retained inconsistently, is the disposition reasoning for each anomaly — who reviewed a below-minimum reading, what fitness-for-service basis was applied, and who signed the accept-as-is decision before the vessel was closed. An auditor reconstructing the turnaround after the fact needs that chain intact for every anomaly, not just the ones that made it into the final summary report.

Where Atlantis is engaged for turnaround audit support, the useful work is usually completed before the audit happens: reviewing the close-out package against the anomaly log while records and the people who wrote them are still accessible, rather than after the plant has moved on and the turnaround team has dispersed to the next site.

Request a consultation